The Trump administration’s Operation Epic Fury, initiated in late February, aimed for swift, decisive action against Iran, reminiscent of Operation Midnight Hammer’s successful strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites. That previous campaign delivered powerful results, impairing Iran’s strategic capabilities significantly. However, the situation has evolved drastically over the past six months.
Iran’s regime has shown remarkable resilience, enduring U.S. military pressure and maintaining control domestically. It has also retained the ability to challenge its adversaries effectively. A key tactic has been its control over the Strait of Hormuz, altering the dynamics of the confrontation. Initially, U.S. goals included dismantling Iran’s nuclear ambitions, weakening its missile capabilities, and curbing Tehran’s support for Middle Eastern terror groups. Currently, energy and commerce flow through Hormuz has emerged as Washington’s primary concern.
The possibility of a lasting agreement over Hormuz between Washington and Tehran remains uncertain. Moreover, doubts persist about the U.S. sustaining the political focus, economic pressure, and military stance required for a fundamental change in Iranian behavior.
American policymakers need a shift in perspective regarding the Iran issue. Historically, Washington has pursued decisive outcomes like nuclear agreements, military strikes, regime change, or diplomatic deals. The current scenario resembles a strategic competition, demanding management rather than resolution.
This situation echoes previous U.S. confrontations, notably the Cold War with the Soviet Union. While imperfect, the analogy highlights Iran’s securitized political system, confrontational stance against the West, strategic ambitions sacrificing domestic prosperity, and internal contradictions akin to the late Soviet era.
The Cold War taught America that overcoming ideological adversaries requires comprehensive competition with their systems. This entails containing expansionism, crippling strategic maneuvers by restricting access to technology and capital, supporting vulnerable allies, and engaging in ideological battles to break their information control.
These lessons are pertinent to Iran. Washington should explore long-term strategies to constrain Tehran’s military, economic, and ideological capabilities. Short-term goals involve deterring Iranian military activities and ensuring navigation freedom in the Persian Gulf without resorting to endless military confrontations. Long-term, sustained pressure may pave the way for fundamental political shifts.
For a blueprint, the U.S. could revisit its Cold War strategies. Ilan Berman, senior vice president of the American Foreign Policy Council, views this approach as crucial for future dealings with Iran.
The views expressed in this article are the writer’s own.